I cant believe folks listened to that myself. To each is own
|
I heard another politician trying to define his place in history, just like I did when Bill Clinton gave his fairwell address. That being said, I also heard echoes of my grandfather, telling me that popular and right aren't always the same thing.
He's neither popular nor right and history will judge him very harshly.
I heard another politician trying to define his place in history, just like I did when Bill Clinton gave his fairwell address. That being said, I also heard echoes of my grandfather, telling me that popular and right aren't always the same thing.He's neither popular nor right
Oh, he's definitely right. I'm sure you wouldn't say he's left, for instance.
and history will judge him very harshly.
Speak to us your wisdom from the future, fair traveler!
One assumes the future will be made up of individuals who think like oneself when they assume that history will judge in a manner similar to the one they are judging in. That's not necessarily the case.
As for the immediate future and immediate past, I did not see the farewell speech, I do not plan on seeing the inauguration one either unless they give me the day off school. And then it is a maybe. Not because I'm disinterested in politics, feigned or otherwise, but because it will be their actions, not their speeches, which affect me and my life. When Obama actually does something in government which betters me or leaves me worse off, then I'll begin making judgments about his presidency. And no speech Bush can make will change any of the actions he has taken, nor their effects on my life.
I didn't even bother listening. The time we had Bush was a time of darkness. He sent us to war under false pretenses. He ignored the Constitution time and time again. I did not want to waste one second listening to it when I could have been writing, or talking to fellow Paizonians, or pretty much anything.
|
|
I heard another politician trying to define his place in history, just like I did when Bill Clinton gave his fairwell address. That being said, I also heard echoes of my grandfather, telling me that popular and right aren't always the same thing.He's neither popular nor rightOh, he's definitely right. I'm sure you wouldn't say he's left, for instance.
and history will judge him very harshly.Speak to us your wisdom from the future, fair traveler!
One assumes the future will be made up of individuals who think like oneself when they assume that history will judge in a manner similar to the one they are judging in. That's not necessarily the case.
As for the immediate future and immediate past, I did not see the farewell speech, I do not plan on seeing the inauguration one either unless they give me the day off school. And then it is a maybe. Not because I'm disinterested in politics, feigned or otherwise, but because it will be their actions, not their speeches, which affect me and my life. When Obama actually does something in government which betters me or leaves me worse off, then I'll begin making judgments about his presidency. And no speech Bush can make will change any of the actions he has taken, nor their effects on my life.
Bad stuff that has been said over and over again but you refuse to listen to even when its coming from his own party.
|
I heard another politician trying to define his place in history, just like I did when Bill Clinton gave his fairwell address. That being said, I also heard echoes of my grandfather, telling me that popular and right aren't always the same thing.He's neither popular nor right and history will judge him very harshly.
That is where you and I differ. I admit that he has done many things wrong, but he has also done many things right. All in all, he has been a pretty mediocre president, but not one that has been any better or worse than others of our time. I remember people saying that Ronald Reagan would be judged very harshly by history, yet this very morning I heard Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, cite Reagan as an example of how a good president should act.
|
|
I didn't even bother listening. The time we had Bush was a time of darkness. He sent us to war under false pretenses. He ignored the Constitution time and time again. I did not want to waste one second listening to it when I could have been writing, or talking to fellow Paizonians, or pretty much anything.
This is an interesting analaysis. I would point out that George Bush did not actually take us to war, Congress dis. The president may only deploy military forces for 90 days without the authority of Congress. Congress voted and overwhelmingly approved the Authorization for Use of Military Force In Iraq Act. They did so having seen the same intelligence that the president saw, and that Bill Clinton cited as justification for attacking Iraq in 1998. Therefore, the only way that it could be argued that George Bush used false pretenses to go to war in Iraq is if you were to also argue that he was so powerful that he was able to plant that intelligence two full years before he was elected president.
As for the charge that he ignored the Constitution, please explain how he did so. I would like to here of specific examples of the president ignoring or violating the Constitution. That has been a talking point of his opponents for a few years now, but I have never heard any specifics, so please enlighten me.
Let me say first off, I didn’t vote for Bush and I didn’t listen to his speech. But still I’ve no intention of sitting around being embittered about him.
I think Bush did what seemed, to him, the right thing to do at the time, and if we don’t agree with his view, we had no business electing him in the first place. And who knows if he’s even responsible for the war?
I’ll finish with a quote:
“I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me.”
– Abraham Lincoln
For one thing, the wire tapping.
For another, Guantanamo.
And maybe he didn't actually 'send us to war', but he shouldn't even have considered it.
Okay, what about wiretapping and Guantanamo Bay actually violates the Constitution?For one thing, the wire tapping.
For another, Guantanamo.
And maybe he didn't actually 'send us to war', but he shouldn't even have considered it.
Guantanamo denied the prisoners a trial, and Bush wouldn't allow people to learn what was going on there.
And while the wire tapping didn't directly violate the Constitution, it was wrong and worth mentioning.
|
Okay, what about wiretapping and Guantanamo Bay actually violates the Constitution?For one thing, the wire tapping.
For another, Guantanamo.
And maybe he didn't actually 'send us to war', but he shouldn't even have considered it.
I'm not making any argument one way or the other, just providing easily-sourced information:
Here's a recent court ruling regarding the conduct of wiretapping without a warrant.
The going argument against GBP is the reported number of prisoners incarcerated and then disallowed release by suspension of habeas corpus, especially with regard to US Citizens and legal Green Card residents entitled to protection under the US Constitution. The Constitution specifically allows for suspension in cases of public safety or invasion.
Okay, what about wiretapping and Guantanamo Bay actually violates the Constitution?For one thing, the wire tapping.
For another, Guantanamo.
And maybe he didn't actually 'send us to war', but he shouldn't even have considered it.Guantanamo denied the prisoners a trial, and Bush wouldn't allow people to learn what was going on there.
And while the wire tapping didn't directly violate the Constitution, it was wrong and worth mentioning.
What do you think of Obama voting for the wire tapping as well?
|
|
Guantanamo denied the prisoners a trial, and Bush wouldn't allow people to learn what was going on there.
And while the wire tapping didn't directly violate the Constitution, it was wrong and worth mentioning.
As noted, a ruling has been issues on the wrietapping, and as further noted Obama voted for it.
As for the denial of a trial and lack of contact, would you like the Geneva Convention citations that support such actions?
I will not deny that Bush made a serious mistake based on what was likely some seriously moronic advice about the classification of the detainees, but it is neither unconstitutional not illegal under international law.
|
|
Okay Andrew beat me to it, but here is the words of the Constitution.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
Not that the Constitution refers to Habeas Corpus as a privilege, not a right.
As far as the wiretaps go, according to NPR they date back to 1978 and Jimmy Carter. They just came to light under George Bush and the Democrat Party saw a chance to make political hay with it. However, when push came to shove they voted to continue to allow the program.
I just think that Sea Kittens sound yummy.
Woah, on another forum I recently heard someone else speaking almost that exact same line!
:D